Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: Canuk the Lionheart on February 17, 2011, 08:35:15 PM
-
Hi, this is Crusading Canuk (lost password for old account..) anyways, I just wanted to try a philosophical experiment with my fellow traditional Catholics. Imagine we are starting a new nation to be based on Catholic principals. Which political system would we use, economics, immigration, armed forces etc...
-
Political system -- Monarchy, bien sur.
Immigration -- Allowed, but very strict and controlled, the people have to really be willing to respect that it is a Catholic country and follow all the rules ( but not necessarily believe )
Economics -- Not really my field, all I know is that the internal economy would have to be very strong. The stance should be nearly isolationist, but not in the sense America purported to be isolationist, in terms of "freedom" and not getting involved in others' wars ( which we never managed to actually live up to ) -- I mean economically isolationist i.e. not globalized. The people would produce the goods that their fellows would then consume, for the most part.
Trade would be limited, there would be high tariffs on all imports, and if any industry tried to hire cheap labor in China while avoiding taxes by creating shelters in Switzerland, they would be heavily fined and punished, and ultimately dissolved if they didn't change their ways. I don't care if this ruins "competitivity," someone else will come and take their place. And I don't care if another country is temporarily more wealthy, because if you do things the right way, you win in the end.
Everything that is done today, just reverse it, and that is the way that this future ideal state should be.
-
Mark thee well, I am not one of these who have confused a hysterical anti-immigration stance with being "right wing." Even Catholic Spain, during most of its history, was so rife with immigration it might as well have been the California of today. Immigration, it seems to me, is at times vital for the health of a country. It smacks of fantasy to imagine a completely homogenous state. I wonder if such a thing has ever existed.
I am just against illegal immigration.
-
Armed forces -- You have to be Catholic to be in the armed forces. An army should be on the same team spiritually and mentally.
Dignity would thus be restored to the armed forces and it would be considered a desireable occupation. The higher members of the army, generals and colonels or whatever they are called in this ideal state, would be carefully chosen and be expected to lead irreproachable lives, like the Templars were ( hear that Roscoe? )
Women would be attracted to those in the military, this in turn would make men want to join, and to do that they would have to convert... See my plan?
Those who served the country well could be made lords and barons. All sorts of incentives should be given to get people into the military, it should be seen by all as a way to truly advance in life in an honorable way.
Some kind of check would have to be put on ambition, though, which the Church was not able to do in the Middle Ages. Military men would have to be kept from getting bored and getting into useless skirmishes, dragging everyone down with them. The military side of the country therefore should be totally subservient to the Church and a fear of God put into all people from their childhood on -- priests should be held in even higher esteem than the soldiers.
The military leaders should also be willing to be purely decorative from time-to-time, they should learn to be on the defensive and not the offensive, and for this they should be more highly educated in theology and philosophy than in the past. They should be taught to respect peacetime as well as wartime and not be made to feel they are weak or feminized when they aren't battling. Military valor and fighting can become an addiction and this has to be tempered.
The nation should be taught to hate personal ambition and to be totally attuned to God's will. Egotism should be made a detestable quality. Even in Catholic Europe, all too often, the emphasis was on STRENGTH instead of on DUTY TO GOD. A warlord who fights for the sake of fighting should not be held in esteem by anyone.
The concept of honor and duty would have to be emphasized constantly, and those who served themselves only should be denounced from every pulpit.
-
Having a "standing army" would not necessarily be required, IMO. Professional soldiers do not always make the very best defenders. I am not saying such an army would, in se, be a BAD idea, but I would not set up such an army unless I had moral certitude that it was a necessary measure and an unavoidable, justifiable expense. IMO, post-Chastisement, such a measure will not be required, at least for a time. That is why the time has been referred to as an "Era of Peace."
With respect to incentives, one always has to keep in mind that fallen nature tends to be mercenary. If I do something (mainly) for money, to attract a woman, etc., my motives are hardly what might be called pure.
-
A professional army may not have to be set up, but will more than likely evolve out of some sort of militant organization. If there is no professional army already in place then it will eventually evolve from a militia that will attain a superiority over the rest through their experience, organization, skill, popularity, etc. . And if there is to be a Catholic State it will require a force to back it and secure it's domain. If there is no organized army, then I think we are being unrealistic in our theory of setting up a Catholic State.
The army that is created should not however replace or substitute any kind of local militia or individual/personal defense options like what is happening in our country today.
-
The ideal Catholic state, in relation to the other states in the world, would probably end up being the most hated as well. Plato said in his republic that the "perfect" unjust man is going to have a perfect reputation for being just, whereas an ideally just man is going to have a perfect reputation for being unjust, and will usually end up being killed (Our Lord himself had to suffer this). Likewise, a perfectly ideal Catholic state, which would have to be a just state, is going to be hated most perfectly by other states. Most likely in the eyes of the world, our kings will be tyrants and our clergymen will be unenlightened, haters of science, elitists, dogmatic, narrow-minded, and haters of women and ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs.
Which basically means our state is going to be crucified by the world, unless of course we can investigate here in this thread a means of survival, if we are to have such a God-like state.
Also, we can investigate what it means to have a perfectly just or virtuous state, if we didn't want to get ahead of ourselves. Would we look at this state as automatically having saintly kings, for instance, or as having a means to develop saintly kings? It would seem that we must first discover how we can produce saintly kings, and not always expect to be privileged with such kings. But that would be realistically. Ideally, I suppose we can assume saintly kings, for if we needed a means to develop saintly kings, then that would mean that there was a sort of imperfection to our ideally catholic state.
So, would we be looking at our state from a more realistic perspective, which had room for human sin and corruption, or perfectly ideal, in which even its rulers and even its citizens are perfectly virtuous? Which way should this be taken?
In short, Garden of Eden style, or World of Satan style?
-
Ultimately, this should be a realistic thread. Any theory based on the assumption that [insert x] dosen't exist when x really does is a flawed theory. Flawed theories are no use to anybody. Assuming we have the perfect world without corruption of any kind would be pointless, we should discuss how the ideal Catholic state would deal with corruption.
-
Alright, that sounds like fun. I'll try to start us off.
I suppose we should start from the very beginning, and that would be with God. God is one God in three divine persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is how God is, and this is how he is most Happy. God, deciding that he would like to share his happiness, made man. He made us according to his image, as it says in Genesis. Now, why would he have made us this way? Surely because by being like God, we can each achieve a superior happiness to that which is not like God? So, in that regard, each man, in his own way, has to be an image of the trinity.
So taking this into account, we can say that the goodness of man lies somewhere in the trinity, and his happiness comes from the trinity in some way. So, I think if we want to understand the ideal catholic state, this has to be kept in mind, that his most natural dispositions are somehow connected to the trinity, and that his corruptions and weaknesses shy away from the trinity.
So I saythat the Ideal Catholic State can be found by at least having an understanding of the trinity that is sufficient to deal with man's weaknesses and such. The ideal Catholic state will funciton similar to the relations between the three divine persons. At least, that is my opinion.
We could start off small by looking at the family unit first. How does the father work, and how does the mother work, and how do the children work? What are their roles, and how are they an image of the trinity?
-
A professional army may not have to be set up, but will more than likely evolve out of some sort of militant organization.
Maybe...maybe not.
If there is no professional army already in place then it will eventually evolve from a militia that will attain a superiority over the rest through their experience, organization, skill, popularity, etc.
IF there is a need. All I am saying is...AFTER The Purification is over, there may or may not be such a need.
And if there is to be a Catholic State it will require a force to back it and secure it's domain.
This presupposes external threats of a certain magnitude. It may seem inconceivable now, but it is well within the realm of possibility that the external threats post-Purification will be few and far between, at least for a few years.
Keep in mind, the Great Monarch is not even supposed to levy taxes for TWELVE years. The world that will follow this mega-storm will not be ANYTHING like the one we all know. It is clear from Fr. Fahey's works that the question of the proper means of national self-defense is very low on the list of important points when constituting a rightly-ordered state. In fact, he does not even discuss the topic (not that doing so is wrong, useless, etc).
If there is no organized army, then I think we are being unrealistic in our theory of setting up a Catholic State.
FWIW, 'organized' and 'professional' are different words that express different concepts.
-
Ok, the father should be the main provider for the family unit. He should be the bread winner. The mother should be the home maker and be concerned with matters of education. Both should be active in the upbringing of the children and raising them in the Faith. The parents should be united and have a harmony so that no one is the "master" of the other but they should be equal partners although having different roles. The children should be obedient to their parents and raised to be respectful, fair and moral. Each family should be encouraged to have at least two children to increase our population and sustain our culture. Also what should we call our nation?
-
Each family should be encouraged to have at least two children to increase our population and sustain our culture.
A birthrate of 2 children per marriage will not sustain a culture. The muslim birthrate is somewhere between 7 and 8 children per woman of childbearing age. Read "America Alone - The End of the World as We Know It" by Mark Steyn. Get it at your library or get it off the Amazon link at the top of this website. Please, if you haven't read this book, read it and then tell others about it. (Warning: this book is not for the timid.)
Here's an excerpt from one of the reviews on Amazon for this book:
Who is reproducing themselves: the US at 2.1 babies per couple, [...] at 7.46, Mali at 7.42, Somalia at 6.76, Afghanistan at 6.69, Ireland at 1.9, New Zealand at 2.11. There are Germany and Austria at 1.3, Russia and Italy at 1.2, and Spain at 1.1. Those with birthrates over 2 are Muslim; those under Caucasian Christian.
(I'm not sure what was left out of this review in the [...] - Maybe the reviewer put that in there?)
Do the math with the birth rates. You don't have to be a math whiz to see that we are in deep trouble. Deep, deep trouble, but nothing that Our Lady cannot help us with. Pray, my friends, as you have never prayed before.
-
An average of 2.11 children per family are needed to sustain a culture, I saw the statistic on a youtube video (origionally put out by the BNP I think). However in this scenario we are just in the first steps of creating our nation. I'm sure we'll find reason for increasing the average birth rate later.
-
And if there is to be a Catholic State it will require a force to back it and secure it's domain.
This presupposes external threats of a certain magnitude. It may seem inconceivable now, but it is well within the realm of possibility that the external threats post-Purification will be few and far between, at least for a few years.
Keep in mind, the Great Monarch is not even supposed to levy taxes for TWELVE years. The world that will follow this mega-storm will not be ANYTHING like the one we all know. It is clear from Fr. Fahey's works that the question of the proper means of national self-defense is very low on the list of important points when constituting a rightly-ordered state. In fact, he does not even discuss the topic (not that doing so is wrong, useless, etc).
The army would not so much be a measure against foreign threats as it would be against domestic ones. Not everyone is going to be comfortable with a religious state. I do believe for this reason the approach should be more public-service oriented rather than military, but as a security measure I think there should be a military present assisting in reconstruction efforts.
Any kind of military at that point, however, is going to be made up of volunteers pretty much, so it will be attracting a different breed of man to it's ranks who will not be expecting any significant pay for his service.
-
If there is no organized army, then I think we are being unrealistic in our theory of setting up a Catholic State.
FWIW, 'organized' and 'professional' are different words that express different concepts.
I was thinking along the lines of skill and discipline, rather than an institution providing work for warriors. But I do believe that we would need a full time army, only on a much smaller scale than what we have now. We dont need a Pentagon, nukes, bases all around the world, large weapons manufacturers, etc.
-
I'm sure we'll find reason for increasing the average birth rate later.
I've got one...
How about the fact that people die every day, and the fact that more than half of the worlds population will die after the chastisement? And the fact that, unless we breed and multiply, Catholics are going to be a minority anyway.
-
The vast majority of the world is supposed to be Catholic in the post-Chastisement world. As for birth rate, a Catholic family, society, world, etc., will not seek to control it. It will be what it will be, according to God's providence and as a result of normal fidelity to the means and ends of marriage.
-
The reason we need an average of 2.11 (lets say 3) children per family is becayse people die every day. This is enough to sustain a culture and replace the erlier generations while slowly increasing the total population. However we should not increase the birth rate to 8 children (like the non-European nations) until we have an economic model which can support thr population growth. Once we do have the economic model necessary, encourage the people to procreate with their spouses as much as possible. That way we will eventually have the large population, economic stability and thriving culture we will need for our state. That being said, we should NEVER discourage people from procreating, merely not make it our top priority at first.
-
I understand the math of it all.
My point is: Men have NO business trying to control such things, whether a country is absurdly wealthy or the poorest in the history of the world.
Just as what goes on in the marital chamber is none of the state's business, it is none of the state's business to set "baby goals" for married people. If the state does anything on this point, it should simply be to encourage marital fidelity and fruitfulness by enacting laws that are in accordance with the natural and divine laws. God (using married folks as His instruments) will take care of the rest.
-
If the state does anything on this point, it should simply be to encourage marital fidelity and fruitfulness by enacting laws that are in accordance with the natural and divine laws. God (using married folks as His instruments) will take care of the rest.
That's actually all I would ever expect the state to do about it. Maybe even give tax incentives for each child...
-
If the state does anything on this point, it should simply be to encourage marital fidelity and fruitfulness by enacting laws that are in accordance with the natural and divine laws. God (using married folks as His instruments) will take care of the rest.
That's actually all I would ever expect the state to do about it. Maybe even give tax incentives for each child...
Exactly, tax incentives is the only way a government can influence the birth rate. Actually, perhaps if we were creating this ideal Catholic state, the nation should have a system of honors for couples who produce X number of children, thus doing their duty to their nation and more importantly their G*d.
-
The reason we need an average of 2.11 (lets say 3) children per family is becayse people die every day. This is enough to sustain a culture and replace the erlier generations while slowly increasing the total population. However we should not increase the birth rate to 8 children (like the non-European nations) until we have an economic model which can support thr population growth. Once we do have the economic model necessary, encourage the people to procreate with their spouses as much as possible. That way we will eventually have the large population, economic stability and thriving culture we will need for our state. That being said, we should NEVER discourage people from procreating, merely not make it our top priority at first.
I wouldnt worry at all about sustaining a large population without an ideal economic structure (not in the short term anyway), unless it was highly concentrated like it is in New York or Chicago. All a person needs to live is food and shelter. And in a state of desolation there really isnt much of an economy because all that is available is what you already have or whatever you can produce right then and there, and then your "market" is limited to whoever happens to live in your area. International trade will be out of the question for a considerable amount of time, so one need not worry about work being or resources being outsourced, even by the immigrant populations. Basically commerce and the distribution of produced supplies will be restricted to your town/city/province and your local economy will be forced to develop a self sustaining system.
It doesn't take forever to grow vegetables.
-
If the state does anything on this point, it should simply be to encourage marital fidelity and fruitfulness by enacting laws that are in accordance with the natural and divine laws. God (using married folks as His instruments) will take care of the rest.
That's actually all I would ever expect the state to do about it. Maybe even give tax incentives for each child...
Exactly, tax incentives is the only way a government can influence the birth rate. Actually, perhaps if we were creating this ideal Catholic state, the nation should have a system of honors for couples who produce X number of children, thus doing their duty to their nation and more importantly their G*d.
I wouldnt go so far as to exalt people for doing something that is naturally good. Medals are for soldiers and heroes, not civilians doing their part.
-
Those who served the country well could be made lords and barons. All sorts of incentives should be given to get people into the military, it should be seen by all as a way to truly advance in life in an honorable way.
That there is a problem. While I think anyone with enough sense to fill such offices would consider them such, I dont think it should be advertised as an incentive. Those positions are for those strong enough to fight and bleed to earn them. That is how they have always been earned. They are not vacant posts to be filled by elections. An aristocracy, as much as I think we need it, is something I will leave totally up to God to set up.
-
If the state does anything on this point, it should simply be to encourage marital fidelity and fruitfulness by enacting laws that are in accordance with the natural and divine laws. God (using married folks as His instruments) will take care of the rest.
That's actually all I would ever expect the state to do about it. Maybe even give tax incentives for each child...
Exactly, tax incentives is the only way a government can influence the birth rate. Actually, perhaps if we were creating this ideal Catholic state, the nation should have a system of honors for couples who produce X number of children, thus doing their duty to their nation and more importantly their G*d.
I wouldnt go so far as to exalt people for doing something that is naturally good. Medals are for soldiers and heroes, not civilians doing their part.
I have to disagree with you here, any mother who gives birth to multiple children and then proceeds to raise them in the Faith and with good morals is a role model for future generations and deserves recognition.
-
Those who served the country well could be made lords and barons. All sorts of incentives should be given to get people into the military, it should be seen by all as a way to truly advance in life in an honorable way.
That there is a problem. While I think anyone with enough sense to fill such offices would consider them such, I dont think it should be advertised as an incentive. Those positions are for those strong enough to fight and bleed to earn them. That is how they have always been earned. They are not vacant posts to be filled by elections. An aristocracy, as much as I think we need it, is something I will leave totally up to God to set up.
Before we go on further, we need to decide if we want a monarchy or republic. Judging from the fact we are using the titles lord and baron, I am assumig moarchy right? If it was a monarchy, an aristocracy would be a necessity. The aristocracy would be along with the Church the ultimate supporters of the monarch. The selection of lord and barons should go along the following lines; grant military men fiefdoms along the boarders, and close relatives who are also skilled in military matters lands at strategic positions further in the nation. Loyal men skilled in matters such as organizing agriculture and city planning should be granted lands in the nations heart.
-
An average of 2.11 children per family are needed to sustain a culture, I saw the statistic on a youtube video (origionally put out by the BNP I think). However in this scenario we are just in the first steps of creating our nation. I'm sure we'll find reason for increasing the average birth rate later.
No no no. The period of human birth is comprehended in a number in which first increments by involution and evolution (or squared and cubed) obtaining three intervals and four terms of like and unlike, waxing and waning numbers, make all the terms commensurable and agreeable to one another. The base of these (3) with a third added (4) when combined with five (20) and raised to the third power furnishes two harmonies; the first a square which is a hundred times as great (400 = 4 × 100), and the other a figure having one side equal to the former, but oblong, consisting of a hundred numbers squared upon rational diameters of a square (i.e. Omitting fractions), the side of which is five (7 × 7 = 49 × 100 = 4900), each of them being less by one (than the perfect square which includes the fractions, sc. 50) or less by two perfect squares of irrational diameters (of a square the side of which is five = 50 + 50 = 100); and a hundred cubes of three (27 × 100 = 2700 + 4900 + 400 = 8000). If you don't follow this geometric figure, you'll have bad births.
But in all seriousness, don't you think you need to go back further, to first principles?
-
Wow, you're right, our new (hypothetical) nation dosen't even have a name yet :cry: Any sugestions?
-
We should name it after Saint Thomas Moore.
-
As for first principles, remember how I said the best, or ideal government would be the one that most resembles an image of the trinity? Well, instead of going through all those abstractions, we could cheat and simply use a system of government that the Holy Ghost himself instituted, and that would be the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church is basically a monarchy, except that it elects its own rulers. It has a system of government that is actually quite personalized, as it is broken up into diocese. Each bishop has close to full authority over his own diocese, with the priests under him. A bishop is not going to interfere in another diocese (at least not directly), so each one is sort of personal to that region (kind of like a republic, in that it is more approachable to normal people). Then we have the Pope, who spends most of his time functioning as a bishop would (at least, back before Vatican II), the main difference between him and a bishop being that he was the final say on disputes concerning faith and morals.
So, I say we have a system of government that resembles how the Catholic Church runs. We would have semi-rulers, who had jurisdiction over their own lands, with a ruler at the top that was elected by these semi-rulers.
-
Ok, so our basic form of government will be German style feudalism like in the days of the Holy Roman Empire. We will have a group of land holding lords who will elect the next monarch from amongst themselves. And yes, we should name our nation after St Thomas Moore, it is fitting considering he wrote a philosophical tretis on creating an ideal society.
-
As for first principles, remember how I said the best, or ideal government would be the one that most resembles an image of the trinity?
I would like to unconditionally agree with this statement; but my question would be, is the "best" or "ideal" government possible? Perhaps there's some plan "laid up in heaven" that we can discuss, but can it be transcribed to an actual, real state given our imperfect human existence? (Which would make the Thomas Moore title very apropos).
-
I spelled his name wrong; It's More, not Moore. Sorry about that.
Yes, the Holy Roman Empire did come to mind actually. Unfortunately, I don't know much about it as I would like save through my high school World History class (and you can guess what kind of opinion my teacher had on it).
And Kailyn, I would have to say no to your question, that it is impossible to have an ideal "State." an Ideal state would have citizens that committed no sin, in which case there would be no need for a government or state, so the ideal "state" would be no state.
Our goal is to form a government that takes into account man's sin and reaches towards an ideal state, though not really reaching it perfectly. At least, that's how it would be realistically. We are trying to get as close to an ideal state as possible, and I think looking at what the Holy Ghost has done on Earth is the closest possible we can go.
-
Hmmmm... problem is I believe we can get closer in speech to the ideal state than we can in the real world, based upon a perfect model. And that seems doomed to failure.
Also, I think our use of the word "state" presumes too much, if we really are trying to build the best possible city.
-
Hmmmm... problem is I believe we can get closer in speech to the ideal state than we can in the real world, based upon a perfect model. And that seems doomed to failure.
Also, I think our use of the word "state" presumes too much, if we really are trying to build the best possible city.
I"m not entirely sure what you mean. Could you clarify?
-
In several of his works, Fr. Denis Fahey outlines the main points that make for a rightly-ordered state. I will see if I can find an online version to post here. IMO, such a framework is the best place to begin a discussion like this one.
-
Lybus, I totally misread what you wrote, so please ignore what I was saying, it's not pertinent. I thought you were being a whole lot less realistic than you actually are.
I would be very interested to see this outline. Hope you can find it gladius_veritatis.
Until then, I had several comments/questions, and I do apologize for the somewhat fractured nature I know this post will have.
First things first. This post was begun as a "a philosophical experiment with my fellow traditional Catholics." This raises the question, at least in my mind, of the relation between the political and the philosophic, and to what degree they are compatible. I'm inclined to believe that they ultimately are, but that they are anything but easily paired.
I also really liked the point brought up about having "saintly kings" and what will be required to have them, though I personally don't feel ready to leap that far ahead in the discussion. It seems like first we'd need to bang out more on the family's relation to the city, the structure of that family, and education of children.
There were also several comments regarding the family, and this seems to be a very important starting issue - the relationship between the family and th city, or the private realm and the common good. The city necessarily requires people to attend to the common good, and this can come at a cost to the private realm. The prime example of this is war. Citizens must defend their city, even if doing do requires the sacrifice of their own lives. This... doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the individual. Of course, in a Catholic state, there are religious reasons to spur the individual on, but it seems there is still a tension there. (By the way, can we agree that every human being naturally seeks his own happiness?) The family represents a potential challenge to the common good, with a father inclined to place the good of his loved one above that of other citizens, and the city itself.
Lybus, I'm still very interested in this tripartite division you're proposing - do you think you could explain any more of it?
-
Well, here is a very short version:
1. The Catholic Church, Supernatural and Supranational, is the ONE way established by God for the ordered return of human beings to Him. ALL states and nations are bound to acknowledge it as such, and all men of all nations are called upon to enter it as Members of Christ.
2. The Catholic Church is the SOLE divinely-appointed guardian of the whole moral law, natural and revealed.
3. Christian Marriage, the foundation of the Christian family, as the symbol of the union of Christ and His Mystical Body, is ONE and INDISSOLUBLE.
4. Children must be educated as Members of Christ's Mystical Body so that they may be able to look at everything, nationality included, from that standpoint.
5. Ownership of property should be widely diffused in order to facilitate families in procuring a sufficiency of material goods for their members. Unions of owners and workers in Guilds will reflect the solidarity of the Mystical Body of Christ.
6. The Monetary System of a country is meant to be at the service of production in view of the virtuous life of Members of Christ in happy families.
The essential ideas are all there:
The proper attitude of the state toward Holy Church, the need for a rightly-ordered monetary system that SERVES production (which, in turn, serves the needs of men), framing laws so they promote/protect Christian marriage, family life, Christian education, laborers, etc.
He expands a great deal upon these points in his books, one of which is already in the Library section of this site.
-
Not sure if I'm ready to dive into 5 and 6.
-
There is neither obligation nor rush to do so :)
-
Ok let's tackle, number one on the list. All, Catholics are part of the Body of Christ, and our official state religion. How will non Catholics be treated and what will be the standing of other religions?
-
Hi, this is Crusading Canuk (lost password for old account..) anyways, I just wanted to try a philosophical experiment with my fellow traditional Catholics. Imagine we are starting a new nation to be based on Catholic principals. Which political system would we use, economics, immigration, armed forces etc...
1. American
2. Democratic
3. Constitutional, with Bill of Rights
4. Secular government, based on Enlightenment principles
:geezer: :dancing: :cheers:
-
Hi, this is Crusading Canuk (lost password for old account..) anyways, I just wanted to try a philosophical experiment with my fellow traditional Catholics. Imagine we are starting a new nation to be based on Catholic principals. Which political system would we use, economics, immigration, armed forces etc...
1. American
2. Democratic
3. Constitutional, with Bill of Rights
4. Secular government, based on Enlightenment principles
:geezer: :dancing: :cheers:
Put down your MJ and sober up.
-
4. Secular government, based on Enlightenment principles
Which principles?
-
4. Secular government, based on Enlightenment principles
Which principles?
Separation of Church and state perhaps?
-
Hi, this is Crusading Canuk (lost password for old account..) anyways, I just wanted to try a philosophical experiment with my fellow traditional Catholics. Imagine we are starting a new nation to be based on Catholic principals. Which political system would we use, economics, immigration, armed forces etc...
1. American
2. Democratic
3. Constitutional, with Bill of Rights
4. Secular government, based on Enlightenment principles
:geezer: :dancing: :cheers:
Seriously? America is morally depraved and financially destitute.
-
2. Democratic
I just LOVE Tyranny of the Mob, dont you?
-
Hi, this is Crusading Canuk (lost password for old account..) anyways, I just wanted to try a philosophical experiment with my fellow traditional Catholics. Imagine we are starting a new nation to be based on Catholic principals. Which political system would we use, economics, immigration, armed forces etc...
1. American
2. Democratic
3. Constitutional, with Bill of Rights
4. Secular government, based on Enlightenment principles
:geezer: :dancing: :cheers:
Ok, I'm going to assume that you're serious. Look at America today, it is not the ideal state, it was founded by Protestants many of whome were likely Masons; that does not make for the ideal Catholic state. Democratic, ok I'm not against the idea of a from of "democracy" as long as there are traditional checks and balances; the Parliamentary system we have here in Canada and the rest of the Commonwealth could work. However I doubt that is the type of "democracy" you were refering to. A Constitutional Bill of rights? That is a good thing but it would have to follow Traditional Catholic principles. But a secular government based on Elightenment principles, really? You do know that the "Enlightenment" was a corruption of Western philosophy and thought right? As for a secular government, this is the ideal CATHOLIC state.
-
Political system -- Monarchy, bien sur.
Immigration -- Allowed, but very strict and controlled, the people have to really be willing to respect that it is a Catholic country and follow all the rules ( but not necessarily believe )
Economics -- Not really my field, all I know is that the internal economy would have to be very strong. The stance should be nearly isolationist, but not in the sense America purported to be isolationist, in terms of "freedom" and not getting involved in others' wars ( which we never managed to actually live up to ) -- I mean economically isolationist i.e. not globalized. The people would produce the goods that their fellows would then consume, for the most part.
Trade would be limited, there would be high tariffs on all imports, and if any industry tried to hire cheap labor in China while avoiding taxes by creating shelters in Switzerland, they would be heavily fined and punished, and ultimately dissolved if they didn't change their ways. I don't care if this ruins "competitivity," someone else will come and take their place. And I don't care if another country is temporarily more wealthy, because if you do things the right way, you win in the end.
Everything that is done today, just reverse it, and that is the way that this future ideal state should be.
I pretty much agree with this, For economics we can use Distributism also known as the third way, or the Catholic way. G.K. Chesterton was a big proponent of it. From what I understand it is primarliy small business oriented and against mega-corps and very anti-socialist. More small businesses mean more redunancy which means more jobs. More competition. I'm not sure on the monatary situation since I am not that educated in that regard. Gold Standard maybe?
For the military I believe in feudalism. I also believe in the old class systems. (If anyone dosn't know a deck of playing cards represents the old class systems so I'll mention which is which)
Nobles(spades) = Those who fight for us.
Clergy(hearts) = Those who pray for us.
Peasants(clubs) = Those who work for us.
Merchants(diamonds) = Those who exploit us.
This is actually the order that most were thought of in. Many Nobles actually refused to protect the merchants which ended up making the merchants band together and form guilds to protect themselves. Ok end of history lesson lol.
I believe in a feudal system. A pure form, like that which france had. Whereby the workers pay about 10% to Knights, the Knights guarentee their protection and have a monetary incentive to make sure noone bothers the peasants. The Knights pay up to a Lord, The Lord has authority over the Knights can command them in a united fight against an outsider and can chastise or remove any Knights that abuse their positions. The Lord's(If multiple would be needed) then Pay up to King who commands authority over all except the Holy Roman Pontiff, a Roman Emperor(Should one ever come again) and Our Lord Jesus Christ and his Church.
How does that sound?
-
Feudalism existed because the weakness of central authorities.
The Shogunate in Japan was one of the most tyrannical governments in history, because it maintained a feudal samurai class that had no real social function. Central authority and peace were established, but arrogant men with samurai swords were going about collecting tribute.
-
While I'm for a new aristocracy to supplant the current false one, I don't believe it should be accompanied by a feudal system. There is no reason why we can't have a more centralized system and have nobility at the same time. After the abolition of the Shogunate, the Japanese Emperor reorganized the military class into a modernized army but allowed (most of) them to retain their ranks. The only thing that changed was that the titles were no longer hereditary, but it may have been different for the nobles.
-
I'm not sure on the monatary situation since I am not that educated in that regard. Gold Standard maybe?
While we should utilize gold as part of the new currency, it will not do us any good alone, simply because there just isn't enough of it to go around even if you were to evenly distribute it. The demand for it alone makes each ounce more expensive. If we did make gold and silver as our SOLE currency (Im assuming we're talking coinage here), when we go to pay for something, it would be like handing the cashier a $1000 bill for a $20 item, because the value of the metal is so high due to it's rarity and huge demand. We could use it, but we would need something else (perhaps not necessarily metal) that is more plentiful and not as valuable to accompany it.
-
While I'm for a new aristocracy to supplant the current false one, I don't believe it should be accompanied by a feudal system. There is no reason why we can't have a more centralized system and have nobility at the same time. After the abolition of the Shogunate, the Japanese Emperor reorganized the military class into a modernized army but allowed (most of) them to retain their ranks. The only thing that changed was that the titles were no longer hereditary, but it may have been different for the nobles.
A nobility that doesn't actually have real power attached to their political control of their hereditary land is not a nobility at all. Monarchy requires agrarianism and cannot function without a real nobility; in its essence, it is entirely incompatible with the modern nation-state created since the Peace of Westphalia. How do you suppose any nobility could exist and actually be of service to its King if it did not actually possess real power (in which it is secure by a perpetual right that the King cannot damage without harming the legitimacy of his entire régime -- i.e., which the King cannot destroy except for very grave reasons) ?
-
While I'm for a new aristocracy to supplant the current false one, I don't believe it should be accompanied by a feudal system. There is no reason why we can't have a more centralized system and have nobility at the same time. After the abolition of the Shogunate, the Japanese Emperor reorganized the military class into a modernized army but allowed (most of) them to retain their ranks. The only thing that changed was that the titles were no longer hereditary, but it may have been different for the nobles.
A nobility that doesn't actually have real power attached to their political control of their hereditary land is not a nobility at all. Monarchy requires agrarianism and cannot function without a real nobility; in its essence, it is entirely incompatible with the modern nation-state created since the Peace of Westphalia. How do you suppose any nobility could exist and actually be of service to its King if it did not actually possess real power (in which it is secure by a perpetual right that the King cannot damage without harming the legitimacy of his entire régime -- i.e., which the King cannot destroy except for very grave reasons) ?
I didn't say aristocrats should not have their own hereditary estates, offices, and resources. Don't put words in my mouth. I was referring to the structure of the national army (I used 'titles' in regards to positions of command in the military, thus the misunderstanding) which in my opinion would be an entity under the kings government.
What I had in mind was for the aristocracy to be the group from which the king would appoint to greater offices such as provincial governor, etc. as they are needed, rather than leave them to be filled hereditarily, so they can be dismissed if they prove poor or wicked administrators.
In what way would you prefer to organize the aristocracy, what powers would you allot to it's members, and how would you make it function with the other classes?
-
Being hierarchical, the Society arguably has some monarchical character. I suggest that the response by faithful Catholics (who would be expected to be the most submissive to authority) to events within the Society is far less than submissive.
Even if one postulates a perfectly just and impeccable monarch, the world is filled with contumacious heretics, atheists, perverts, etc.
What then would life look like under The Great Monarch? Does the prophecy say anything of that?
-
First things first. This post was begun as a "a philosophical experiment with my fellow traditional Catholics." This raises the question, at least in my mind, of the relation between the political and the philosophic, and to what degree they are compatible. I'm inclined to believe that they ultimately are, but that they are anything but easily paired.
I also really liked the point brought up about having "saintly kings" and what will be required to have them, though I personally don't feel ready to leap that far ahead in the discussion. It seems like first we'd need to bang out more on the family's relation to the city, the structure of that family, and education of children.
There were also several comments regarding the family, and this seems to be a very important starting issue - the relationship between the family and th city, or the private realm and the common good. The city necessarily requires people to attend to the common good, and this can come at a cost to the private realm. The prime example of this is war. Citizens must defend their city, even if doing do requires the sacrifice of their own lives. This... doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the individual. Of course, in a Catholic state, there are religious reasons to spur the individual on, but it seems there is still a tension there. (By the way, can we agree that every human being naturally seeks his own happiness?) The family represents a potential challenge to the common good, with a father inclined to place the good of his loved one above that of other citizens, and the city itself.
Lybus, I'm still very interested in this tripartite division you're proposing - do you think you could explain any more of it?
The above was posted by Kailyn btw.
To the first paragraph: The philosophy can only match the political when the two are placed in reality (AKA how things really are with human nature). If we followed the philosophies of, say, the empircists or the rationalists, the end result would be a diminishing of our human nature and it would follow that we would either become animals to be locked up in cages or angelic beings that no one has a right to rule over. Actually it is really philosophy that should guide politics, as a pursuit of truth is really the only way to know what the heck needs to be done in politics as a whole.
As to a saintly king, my personal stab at it would be to have a king raised much like King Arthur might have been (He didn't know he was the true heir to the throne and he was working as a squire). The heir (or heirs) to the throne should have humility pounded into them hard, and should mingle among the lower classes on at least several occassions. A king should learn to be down to Earth and not be afraid to get his hands dirty. It would take very very wise tutors to present to the heir a path in which he will have the opportunity to make himself both humble and confident; meek and yet have a firm and authoritative hand.
The third paragraph: The family is really the first symbol of the trinity. We have the Father, the Wife, and the Son (all the children). The father has the authority, the children submit to the father's authority, and the wife is the median through which the father gives his love to his children and creates them. Yes, each man seeks his own happiness, but this does not hamper his willingness (or at least it shouldn't) hamper it so long as his love is placed in the proper places. Love in its deepest form is seeing the other individual as another self, in which his pain is your pain, and his joys are your joys. To love your country means that its pains are your pains, it's successes are your successes. That's why a father is so willing to die for his family; the family is more than just an extension of himself (to which could be discarded if necessary), but are other selves, to which he would rather that they live than he himself alone. He is willing to sacrifice himself because he knows that his other selves will live on in his stead. And yes, religiously, he knows that he will see them again very soon.
-
What I had in mind was for the aristocracy to be the group from which the king would appoint to greater offices such as provincial governor, etc. as they are needed, rather than leave them to be filled hereditarily, so they can be dismissed if they prove poor or wicked administrators.
In what way would you prefer to organize the aristocracy, what powers would you allot to it's members, and how would you make it function with the other classes?
That's a good point, though it makes the line of succession a little less predictable.
Here's some food for thought. I think a monarchy is better than a Republic for religious reasons as well as practical reasons. I think the monarchy represents the way in which God works in the individual. God made every man specifically for a purpose and for his exact state in life. He made that man specifically for that purpose and so no one can fulfill that purpose as well as that man can. Each man is the king of his own life and he chooses what to do within the confines of that life which was given to him. Each man has his own fate and his own way of approaching that fate. It is the fate and destiny of a prince to one day rule the kingdom, and he must do it in a way of his own choosing. An apprentice is destined one day to become a blacksmith, and he can choose to lie and cheat for profit or perform his work honestly. In a republic, man has no sense of fate or destiny, he has only his will, but he really needs both. A man can never be happy trying to make his own fate, completely independent of divine providence.
-
While we should utilize gold as part of the new currency, it will not do us any good alone, simply because there just isn't enough of it to go around even if you were to evenly distribute it. The demand for it alone makes each ounce more expensive. If we did make gold and silver as our SOLE currency (Im assuming we're talking coinage here), when we go to pay for something, it would be like handing the cashier a $1000 bill for a $20 item, because the value of the metal is so high due to it's rarity and huge demand. We could use it, but we would need something else (perhaps not necessarily metal) that is more plentiful and not as valuable to accompany it.
One can use other metals as well as gold, with gold being at the top of the heap, so to speak. Silver, nickel and copper have intrinsic value as well. We certainly have enough metals to make a monetary system. So what if an ounce of gold winds up worth an acre of land? Coins can be alloyed with baser metals and a certain percentage of the precious metal to make it all work. When it comes down to it, the only things that really have value at their base are land (including mineral and water rights) and human labor. These are the things that money really represents.
(I am a little late to this discussion, so please forgive me)
-
While we should utilize gold as part of the new currency, it will not do us any good alone, simply because there just isn't enough of it to go around even if you were to evenly distribute it. The demand for it alone makes each ounce more expensive. If we did make gold and silver as our SOLE currency (Im assuming we're talking coinage here), when we go to pay for something, it would be like handing the cashier a $1000 bill for a $20 item, because the value of the metal is so high due to it's rarity and huge demand. We could use it, but we would need something else (perhaps not necessarily metal) that is more plentiful and not as valuable to accompany it.
One can use other metals as well as gold, with gold being at the top of the heap, so to speak. Silver, nickel and copper have intrinsic value as well. We certainly have enough metals to make a monetary system. So what if an ounce of gold winds up worth an acre of land? Coins can be alloyed with baser metals and a certain percentage of the precious metal to make it all work. When it comes down to it, the only things that really have value at their base are land (including mineral and water rights) and human labor. These are the things that money really represents.
(I am a little late to this discussion, so please forgive me)
We could use other metals, but the conversion of Gold to every USD in circulation makes it nearly impossible to use as a common medium of exchange. Gold currently is not being sold at it's true value, due to the manipulation of the market. In the real world with an honest system, an ounce of gold wouldn't buy you an acre, it would likely buy you a farm.
I'm not saying you should pass up gold as an investment (heavens no!), but I think we should look at other alternatives to use as mediums of exchange besides metals. Remember, the Romans used salt.